UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1616

JERRY GLENN JOSHUA,

Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director
Department of Corrections,

of

the

Virginia
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00079-RBS)

Submitted:

November 15, 2007

Decided: November 20, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Glenn Joshua, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Jerry Glenn Joshua seeks to appeal the district courts
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).

The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Joshua that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Joshua failed to object to the magistrate
judges recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judges recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of
the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been
warned of the consequences of noncompliance.

Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985).

Since Joshua fails to provide sworn evidence

supporting his contention that he did not receive the report and
recommendation, he has waived appellate review by failing to timely
file specific objections.
petition

was

properly

Further, the record reflects that the

dismissed.

Accordingly,

we

deny

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
- 2 -